Sunday, March 22, 2015

Big Data Show that Nepotism Rules in America

Just How Nepotistic Are We?

MARCH 21, 2015

THERE is a very real chance that the presidential election in 2016 will pit Jeb Bush against Hillary Clinton. According to oddsmakers, this is the likeliest outcome.

Many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea that two families could dominate the presidency that way. Whether or not you like one of the candidates, it just doesn’t feel right, in part because a second Bush-Clinton election makes a mockery of our self-identification as a democratic meritocracy.

How bad is America’s nepotism problem? Can data science help us gauge its depth? It can — and what the data shows is that something has gone haywire.

I studied the probability of male baby boomers’ reaching the same level of success as their fathers. I had to limit myself to fathers and sons because this was a highly sexist period in which women held few powerful political positions.

Let’s start with the presidency. Thirteen sons of presidents were born during America’s baby boom. One of the 13 became president himself, of course, and Jeb would make a second. Of the roughly 37 million boomer males who weren’t born to a president, two won the White House. Maybe it’s an anomaly that George W. Bush became president in 2001, but his advent means that in our era a son of a president was roughly 1.4 million times more likely to become president than his supposed peers.

The presidency is obviously a small sample. But the same calculations can be done for other political positions. Take governors.

Because it is difficult to be sure that you have counted all the sons of governors, let’s assume that governors reproduce at average rates. This would mean there were about 250 baby boomer males born to governors. Five of them became governors themselves, about one in 50. This is 6,000 times the rate of the average American. The same methodology suggests that sons of senators had an 8,500 times higher chance of becoming a senator than an average American male boomer.

There is some evidence that the parental advantage in politics is actually getting bigger. George W. Bush ended a 171-year drought for presidential sons. From 2003 to 2006, the Senate had the highest percentage of senators’ children — six — in its history.

Thanks, Dad!

Thirteen sons of presidents were born during America's baby boom. One, George W. Bush, also became president. Below are the odds that a boomer man matched his father's achievement — compared to the odds for the average male boomer.

Is this electoral edge unusual? Successful parents, whatever their occupation, pass on their genes and plenty of other stuff to their kids. Do different fields have similar familial patterns?

In just about every field I looked at, having a successful parent makes you way more likely to be a big success, but the advantage is much smaller than it is at the top of politics.

Using the same methodology, I estimate that the son of an N.B.A. player has about a one in 45 chance of becoming an N.B.A. player. Since there are far more N.B.A. slots than Senate slots, this is only about an 800-fold edge.

Think about the N.B.A. further. The skills necessary to be a basketball player, especially height, are highly hereditary. But the N.B.A. is a meritocracy, with your performance easy to evaluate. If you do not play well, you will be cut, even if the team is the New York Knicks and your name is Patrick Ewing Jr. Father-son correlation in the N.B.A. is only one-eleventh as high as it is in the Senate.

The parental edge in football and baseball is much lower than it is in basketball, probably because there is less reliance on height.

I went through a wide range of fields and found a consistent pattern: greater success for the sons, but nothing like the edge a winning politician provides.

Here is the estimated parental edge for other big American prizes and positions. An American male is 4,582 times more likely to become an Army general if his father was one; 1,895 times more likely to become a famous C.E.O.; 1,639 times more likely to win a Pulitzer Prize; 1,497 times more likely to win a Grammy; and 1,361 times more likely to win an Academy Award. Those are pretty decent odds, but they do not come close to the 8,500 times more likely a senator’s son is to find himself chatting with John McCain or Dianne Feinstein in the Senate cloakroom.

THE Bush story is also telling, when we compare it to familial success in other fields.

Has any modern family dominated a meritocracy the way that the Bushes dominate politics? I could not find one. The Mannings, in football, probably come closest. But while Archie Manning, the father of two Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks, Peyton and Eli, was a solid N.F.L. player, he was hardly the football equivalent of a president.

Internationally, the greatest father-son, merit-based, same-field accomplishment is probably Niels Bohr’s son Aage matching his father’s Nobel Prize in Physics. But neither the Bohrs nor the Mannings dominated physics or football the way the Bush family dominates American politics.

Regression to the mean limits family dominance in any meritocratic field. If you have a well-above-average dose of a trait, you can expect your child to be closer to average.

Regression to the mean is so powerful that once-in-a-generation talent basically never sires once-in-a-generation talent. It explains why Michael Jordan’s sons were middling college basketball players and Jakob Dylan wrote two good songs. It is why there are no American parent-child pairs among Hall of Fame players in any major professional sports league.

The Bush family’s dominance would be the basketball equivalent of Michael Jordan being the father of LeBron James and Kevin Durant — and of Michael Jordan’s father being Walt Frazier.

In other words, it is virtually impossible, statistically speaking, that Bushes are consistently the most talented people to lead our country. Same for Chelsea Clinton or any other member of a political dynasty thought to be possible presidential timber.

Politics is not the absolute worst field in giving an advantage to certain families. In my research, I found two fields with a bigger family edge.

First is billionaires. According to my calculation, you have about a 28,000 times higher chance of being a billionaire if your father was a billionaire. And billionaires like the Waltons or the Rockefellers before them probably dominate American wealth more than the Bushes dominate American politics.

These billionaires, of course, have inherited their status, not earned it. Call me jaded, but it seems to me that most heirs to billionaires don’t do much more than marry nice-looking people and take sports franchises that I support and run them into the ground.

The second group is reality TV stars. You have about a 9,300 times edge in becoming a reality television star if your father is one. But this is precisely because some of these shows star famous people’s families.

We should not take this criticism too far. In 2008, the United States chose the mixed-race son of a Kenyan and a Kansan to be president. More than 90 percent of senators had parents who weren’t top politicians. And political campaigns can be unpredictable. For all we know, the 2016 election could be fought between Senator Elizabeth Warren, daughter of a janitor, and Gov. Scott Walker, son of a minister.

Unless of course the Democratic candidate is Andrew M. Cuomo, son of a governor, and the Republican candidate is Rand Paul, son of a congressman.

There are plenty of countries that are worse. Over the past 50 years, being the son of a leader of North Korea increased your probability of being a leader of North Korea by a factor of infinity. An infinite advantage to having a powerful father has been common in human history.

But Big Data allows us not just vague comparisons to other countries or time periods. We can see precisely how much families dominate in many different spheres and we can see what true meritocracies look like. The data shows conclusively that we have a nepotism problem. So now the question is: Why does the modern United States tolerate this level of privilege for political name brands?

Monday, March 16, 2015

Sample Research Projects

Music and Activities

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4T05wQUpTSXdqN28/view?usp=sharing

Music and Social Media

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4TFJzYXFaMEVsekE/view?usp=sharing

Stress and Television Habits

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4aS16ZUZJUnRsd1U/view?usp=sharing

Four Criteria Used to Evaluate Qualitative Research

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4c2pvakk0dmkwYk0/view?usp=sharing

Nature of Qualitative Research (Qualitative vs. Quantitative)

The Nature of Qualitative Research

All research, whether quantitative or qualitative, must involve an explicit, disciplined, systematic approach to finding things out, using the method most appropriate to the question being asked. Consideration should be given to these common goals, although the differences between qualitative and quantitative research have often been exaggerated in the past. The table below summarizes some of the ways in which qualitative and quantitative research do differ:

Table 1

Qualitative research	Quantitative research
tends to focus on how people or groups of people can have (somewhat) different ways of looking at reality (usually social or psychological reality)	tends to focus on ways of describing and understanding reality by the discovery of general “laws”
takes account of complexity by incorporating the real-world context – can take different perspectives on board	takes account of complexity by precise definition of the focus of interest and techniques that mean that external “noise” can be discounted
studies behaviour in natural settings or uses people’s accounts as data; usually no manipulation of variables	involves manipulation of some variables (independent variables) while other variables (which would be considered to be extraneous and confounding variables) are held constant
focuses on reports of experience or on data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically	uses statistical techniques that allow us to talk about how likely it is that something is “true” for a given population in an objective or measurable sense
focuses on description and interpretation and might lead to development of new concepts or theory, or to an evaluation of an organisational process	focuses on cause & effect - e.g. uses experiment to test (try to disprove) an hypothesis
employs a flexible, emergent but systematic research process	requires the research process to be defined in advance

Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena. That is to say, it aims to help us to understand the social world in which we live and why things are the way they are. It is concerned with the social aspects of our world and seeks to answer questions about:

· Why people behave the way they do

· How opinions and attitudes are formed

· How people are affected by the events that go on around them

· How and why cultures and practices have developed in the way they have

In a health or social care setting, qualitative research is particularly useful where the research question involves one of the situations below and people’s experiences and views are sought:

· exploration or identification of concepts or views

· exploration of “implementability”

· the real-life context

· sensitive topics where flexibility is needed to avoid causing distress

In the past the distinguishing features of qualitative and quantitative research have been used as criticisms by proponents of the “other” methodology. For example, one common criticism leveled at qualitative research has been that the results of a study may not be generalizable to a larger population because the sample group was small and the participants were not chosen randomly. However if the original research question sought insight into a specific subgroup of the population, not the general population, because the subgroup is “special” or different from the general population and that specialness is the focus of the research, the small sample may have been appropriate. This would be the case with some ethnic groups or some patient groups suffering from rare conditions, or patient or health care groups in particular circumstances. In such studies, generalizability of the findings to a wider, more diverse population is not an aim. Another example is the label of reductionism, based on the requirement of the experimental method to eliminate all but one measurable variable, which is used to imply criticism of quantitative methodology. The rigour involved in a well designed and executed experiment is a strength of quantitative research just as an alternative approach which engages with context is a strength of qualitative methodology.

Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Qualitative Data Collection Methods

In this section, methods of qualitative research data collection are outlined. The main methods are:

1) interviews

2) focus groups

3) observation

4) collection of documented material such as letters, diaries, photographs

5) collection of narrative

6) open ended questions in questionnaires (other aspects of are covered in the resource pack surveys and questionnaires )

Interviews

Interviewing can, at one extreme, be structured, with questions prepared and presented to each interviewee in an identical way using a strict predetermined order. At the other extreme, interviews can be completely unstructured, like a free-flowing conversation. Qualitative researchers usually employ “semi-structured” interviews which involve a number of open ended questions based on the topic areas that the researcher wants to cover. The open ended nature of the questions posed defines the topic under investigation but provides opportunities for both interviewer and interviewee to discuss some topics in more detail. If the interviewee has difficulty answering a question or provides only a brief response, the interviewer can use cues or prompts to encourage the interviewee to consider the question further. In a semi structured interview the interviewer also has the freedom to probe the interviewee to elaborate on an original response or to follow a line of inquiry introduced by the interviewee. An example would be:

Interviewer: "I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether changes in government policy have changed the work of the doctor in general practice. Has your work changed at all?"

Interviewee: "Absolutely! The workload has increased for a start."

Interviewer: "Oh, how is that?"

Preparation for semi-structured interviews includes drawing up a “topic guide” which is a list of topics the interviewer wishes to discuss. The guide is not a schedule of questions and should not restrict the interview, which needs to be conducted sensitively and flexibly allowing follow up of points of interest to either interviewer or interviewee. In addition to the topic guide, the interviewer will probably want to approach the interview with written prompts to him/herself in order to make sure that the necessary preliminary ground is covered concerning such things as the information leaflet (has the interviewee understood it and got any questions?), the consent form (has it been signed?), the voice recorder (is it switched on?). The semi-structured interview is possibly the most common qualitative research data gathering method in health and social care research as it is relatively straightforward to organize. That does not however mean that it is easy to conduct good qualitative research interviews. A good interviewer needs to be able to put an interviewee at ease, needs good listening skills and needs to be able to manage an interview situation so as to collect data which truly reflect the opinions and feelings of the interviewee concerning the chosen topic(s). A quiet, comfortable location should be chosen and the interviewer should give consideration to how s/he presents her/himself in terms of dress, manner and so on, so as to be approachable. Most commonly interviews are audio recorded. Digital voice recorders are excellent for this and easier to use and less intrusive than tape recorders. Interviews may also be video-taped if details such as non-verbal signals are needed for the analysis. In practice it may be more difficult to obtain the approval of the relevant ethics committee(s) for video-recording and it may be more difficult to get consent from interviewees. A form of interview can be conducted by email. This will generate qualitatively different types of response from participants partly because they are able to delay responding until they have thought about what to say. Interesting research is being carried out on the special features of email communications.

As with all other research (qualitative and quantitative), audit trails are good practice. Therefore, a reflexive diary should be kept by the researcher. Part of this should take the form of field notes and it is good practice to enter observations and impressions about each interview into a notebook as soon as possible after the interview has taken place.

Focus Groups

In a way focus groups resemble interviews, but focus group transcripts can be analysed so as to explore the ways in which the participants interact with each other and influence each other’s expressed ideas, which obviously cannot happen with one-to-one interview material. In common with semi-structured interviews, focus group conveners use topic guides to help them keep the discussion relevant to the research question. Focus groups are not necessarily a cheaper and quicker means to an end than are interviews, as focus groups may be more difficult to manage and more difficult to convene simply because more people are involved. Focus groups are considered to work well with approximately 8 people, but this is not always easy to arrange – do you invite more in the expectation that one or two will not turn up? If so, how do you manage if 10 or 12 present themselves? or if not, what if only 3 or 4 turn up (as a courtesy to them you will probably have to proceed)? For issues concerning sampling and constitution of focus groups, see Section 5. Focus groups are ideally run in accessible locations where participants can feel comfortable and relaxed. The time of day and facilities offered will need to be appropriate for the particular target member: for example is a crèche needed? Is there adequate car-parking space? It is better if the discussion is not interrupted and so it is a good idea to offer refreshments and to point out toilet facilities beforehand. Serving refreshments as people arrive also serves as a good “ice-breaker” and allows participants to meet each other before the focus group starts.

An important preliminary for conducting focus groups is laying down the “ground rules”. One of these concerns confidentiality, and this needs careful planning at the proposal and ethics committee application stage. Members of a focus group may not speak openly unless they are comfortable that others present will treat their contributions as confidential. It could be laid down as a condition of the focus group that it is expected that the content of the discussion which is about to take place will only be known by those present. All participants should indicate their agreement to this. Alternatively, if this seems unrealistic, the facilitator could point out that there are ways of presenting ideas that avoid breaching confidentiality: for instance, a participant can say “I have heard on the grapevine that ‘x’ sometimes happens” rather than saying “‘x’ has happened to me”, and that participants might adopt this policy.

Acting as facilitator of a focus group, the researcher must allow all participants to express themselves and must cope with the added problem of trying to prevent more than one person speaking at a time, in order to permit identification of the speakers for the purposes of transcription and analysis. This is something else which should be requested when laying down the “ground rules”. Unless the proceedings are being videoed, it is a good idea to have an observer present. This person’s role could be to note which participant is saying what, which can be done if each person is labelled with a number or letter and the relevant label is noted alongside the first word or two of his/her contribution. Another point to make clear at the outset is the planned completion time for the discussion.

Observation

Not all qualitative data collection approaches require direct interaction with people. Observation is a technique that can be used when data cannot be collected through other means, or those collected through other means are of limited value or are difficult to validate. For example, in interviews participants may be asked about how they behave in certain situations but there is no guarantee that they actually do what they say they do. Observing them in those situations is more valid: it is possible to see how they actually behave. Observation can also produce data for verifying or nullifying information provided in face to face encounters.

In some research observation of people is not required but observation of the environment. This can provide valuable background information about the environment where a research project is being undertaken. For example, an ethnographic study of a children’s ward may need information about the layout of the ward or about how people dress. In a health needs assessment or in a locality survey observations can provide broad contextual descriptions of the key features of the area: for example, whether the area is inner city, urban or rural, the geographical location, the size of the population. It can describe the key components of the area: the main industries, type of housing. The availability of services can be identified: the number, type and location of health care facilities such as hospitals and health centers, care homes, leisure facilities, shopping centers.

Techniques for collecting data through observation:

Written descriptions. The researcher can record observations of people, a situation or an environment by making notes of what has been observed. The limitations of this are similar to those of trying to write down interview data as an interview takes place. First there is a risk that the researcher will miss out on observations because s/he is writing about the last thing s/he noticed. Secondly, the researcher may find her/his attention focusing on a particular event or feature because it appears to be particularly interesting or relevant and miss things which are equally or more important but their importance is not recognized or acknowledged at the time.

Video recording. This frees the observer from the task of making notes at the time and allows events to be reviewed repeatedly. One disadvantage of video recording is that the actors in the social world may be more conscious of the camera than they would be of a person and that this will affect their behavior. They may even try to avoid being filmed. This problem can be lessened by having the camera placed at a fixed point rather than being carried around. In either case though, only events in the line of the camera can be recorded, limiting the range of possible observations and perhaps distorting conclusions.

Artifacts. Artifacts may be objects which inform us about a phenomenon under study because of their significance to the phenomenon. Examples would be doctors’ equipment in a particular clinic or art work hung in residential care homes.

Collection of Documented Material such as Letters, Diaries, Photographs

Documentation. A wide range of written materials can produce qualitative information. These can be particularly useful in trying to understand the philosophy of an organisation as may be required in ethnography. They can include policy documents, mission statements, annual reports, minutes of meetings, codes of conduct, web sites, series of letters or emails, case notes, health promotion materials, etc. Diary entries may be used retrospectively (it is reasonable to assume that diarists will enter things which were important to them at the time of the entry) or diaries may be given to research participants who are asked to keep an account of issues or their thoughts concerning diet, medication, interactions with health care services or whatever is the subject of the research. Audio diaries may be used if the written word presents problems. Notice boards can also be a valuable source of data.

Photographs are a good way of collecting information which can be captured in a single shot or series of shots. For example, photographs of buildings, neighborhoods, dress and appearance could be analyzed in such a way as to develop theory about professional relationships over a given time period. Photographs may be produced for research purposes or existing photographs may be used for analysis. As with every method of data collection, any ethical implications of collecting documents should be considered.

Collection of Narrative

A story told by a research participant, or a conversation between two or more people can be used as data for qualitative research (see Section 3). Data collected should be entirely naturally occurring, not shaped as in a semi-structured interview or focus group. Narrative data can however be collected in the course of a form of interview. The “narrative interview” begins with a “generative narrative question” which invites the interviewee to relate his/her account of his/her life history or a part of it. This could be an account of living with a chronic illness or with a child with special needs or as a carer for an elderly relative. During the first part of the interview, the interviewee should listen actively but should not interject with further questioning. When the narrator indicates that the narrative is completed, there follows a questioning phase where the interviewer elicits further information on fragments which have been introduced. This may be followed by a balancing phase where first “how” and then “why” questions are asked in order to gain further explanation of aspects of the narrative.

Open ended questions in questionnaires

Open ended questions, responses to which are to be analyzed qualitatively, may be included in questionnaires even though the majority of the questionnaire will generate quantitative data. The open ended questions usually require that responses, which reflect the opinions of the respondents, be written in blank spaces. This form of data may give useful guidance to a researcher planning an interview or focus group study. The outcome by itself may be a source of frustration as there is no opportunity to ask for clarification of any point made.

Qualitative Sampling

Qualitative Sampling

In qualitative research, sampling can occur at several stages, both while collecting data and while interpreting and reporting on it.

Sampling while collecting data for qualitative research is not the same as sampling in quantitative research because researchers are not interested in being able to generalise at a statistical level – instead the key is purposive or strategic sampling. Many would therefore argue that probability-based sampling (e.g. random sampling) is inappropriate. Sampling strategies can be determined in advance and/or evolve during the research process (gradual definition of sample structure).

Sampling Strategy Determined in Advance

Researchers might determine their strategy in advance by devising a sampling frame which has to be filled (this means drawing up a chart which lists the types of characteristics they wish their sample to include, such as a range of age-groups, a range of health status groups, a range of areas in terms of affluence/deprivation; then ensuring that recruitment continues until there is at least one “tick” against each characteristic). This is sometimes known as criterion/quota sampling because the researchers identify criteria that are important to study and select cases that meet these criteria. Another strategy determined in advance would be “complete collection”: for instance a researcher who wanted to learn about what happened to middle aged men who had chronic renal failure in an area of SE Britain would try to recruit all patients who were male, aged 30-50, in all renal units in that particular area.

Gradual Definition of Sample Structure

There are many ways of gradually defining the sampling structure, some are listed below but you may come across others. It is important to remember that practical constraints are a particular issue in many qualitative research studies (because data collection is time-consuming for example): in practice you may find that many samples are “convenience samples”. The important message to take away from this section is one about how to recognise good practice in sampling when you read about qualitative research, and how to make sure your own research is of high quality - document your sampling strategy, be able to describe the characteristics of those involved in the study, demonstrate that the sampling strategy contributes to a search for disconfirming evidence (i.e. show that you are not just collecting data that you hope will support a pre-conceived idea), and give a full and honest account of what was done. This applies to choosing illustrative quotations when reporting and disseminating research, as well as to sampling participants or events.

Theoretical sampling: here, sampling is directed towards making possible generalisations about theoretical propositions and new cases are selected for their potential in extending or testing emergent understanding.

Convenience sampling: here researchers select those who are available and likely to participate, perhaps over a specific period.

Typical case sampling: researchers decide on the characteristics of “typical” individuals and select the sample to fit the characteristics of typical cases in selecting people for focus groups etc.

Critical case sampling: researchers choose cases that they believe to be especially important because of the position they hold (e.g. because of their particular place within an organisation) or because they are especially well able to articulate a view (e.g. spokesperson for a medical charity).

Maximum variation sampling: here researchers identify cases with different characteristics to maximise diversity in the sample, usually to get the widest range of views possible. This is best done using quota methods (see “strategy determined in advance”) and iteratively (e.g. refine your quotas based on the emergent analysis – you may decide you need to investigate one group in more depth). Any common themes that emerge can capture “core” experiences or views.

Intensity sampling: this is where researchers sample the same characteristics over and over. It tends to be used in interpretive phenomenological analysis.

Snowball sampling: relies on referrals, one participant recruits others. This can help researchers to capitalise on informal networks that might otherwise be difficult to access (e.g. sex workers, drug users, victims of domestic violence etc).

How do you Know When you Have an Adequate Sample?

Ideally this will occur when your quota (sampling frame) is full, and when you have reached theoretical saturation – in other words when additional cases do not modify your coding frame. It is a good idea to have some redundancy, and to be able to report on when you reached saturation and how. (Theoretical saturation occurs when new data from new cases do not contribute to the development of emerging theory even after you have tried to ensure that your new cases are those most likely to extend or challenge your ideas.) In practice, if you are applying for funding for a study, you will need to specify how many participants you are likely to need. As a rough guide, for interview studies analysed using constant comparative approaches, theoretical saturation will probably be reached after 20-60 interviews.

Samples for Focus Group Studies

There are some additional points that might help when arranging focus group studies. The recommended size of a group is 6 – 10 people, having fewer than this could limit the potential interaction, and having more than this could make it difficult for everyone to join in the discussion. A study using focus groups to collect data should include several groups, not just one, because any individual group is subject to internal or external factors of which the investigator may be unaware. Also, on a practical level, there may be individual groups that do not go smoothly: the members may be reluctant to participate or not interact well with each other and limited insight will be gained. Enough groups should be run to provide adequate breadth and depth of information; there is a tendency for 10 to 15 groups per study but some studies may find that 4 or 5 are enough. There is no upper limit on the number of focus groups that could be held although this will be limited by resources.

The members of each focus group should usually have something in common: characteristics which are important to the topic of investigation. For example, they may all be members of the same profession or they may work in the same team. They may all be patients at a practice or have experienced a similar health problem or be receiving similar treatment. Participants might or might not know each other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Thanks, Dad!

Monday, March 16, 2015